Angry Father and Presidential Candidate vs. Free Speech..

[Bells]

It's enough to make any father lash out in anger.

A self-professed pedophile posts photos of your young daughters on his Web site, where he describes them as an "angelic duo."

It happened to Senator Barack Obama whose presidential campaign threatened legal action against Lindsay Ashford, a self-professed pedophile who handicapped the 2008 campaign by judging the "cuteness" of several presidential candidates' underage daughters and granddaughters. Attorneys who specialize in free speech say the campaign's handling of the issues raises some questions about the candidate's stance on civil rights.
Link

This raises an interesting point.

As a father, he has every right to be angry. Who wouldn't be? Imagine having photos of your daughters appearing on a paedophile's website and literally being rated on their cuteness? Horrible thought and not one parents wish to contemplate.

So is he a bad Presidential candidate for wanting to make the paedophile pay and have the images taken down therefore trying to stifle free speech? Or is he being a protective parent?

No matter how distasteful the content of the website, Walters and Jonathan Katz, another First Amendment lawyer, were surprised that the Obama campaign had threatened legal action in this case.

"If Obama knows that his lawyer is doing this, then that's one reason not to vote for him," Katz said. "These are clear free speech issues."

Tricky issue.

A father's wish to protect his daughters against a paedophile's right to free speech. This could go either way for Obama. Parents would understand his desire to protect his daughters from paedophiles. But free speech is such an inherent right in the US. What a dilema.

The article was posted in April on Ashford's Web site, where he wrote: "I have decided to make my predictions based upon what lovely First Daughter we can look forward to watching grow up for four to eight years."

The piece includes photos of the underage daughters of Obama, former Sen. John Edwards, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, former Virginia Sen. George Allen and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, and the granddaughters of Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Vice President Dick Cheney, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Although Ashford praises most of the children, he chooses Obama over Santorum in the end, based on the attractiveness of the girls. He also expresses distaste for candidates' older children, saying that Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "have serious trouble: they have adult daughters."

Ashford has a history of upsetting people with his online behavior; on his site, he describes himself as "Lover of Little Girls."

It is enough to make the skin crawl.

Now this is a man who is a self professed and confessed paedophile. One would assume his website would be frequented by other paedophiles? However, he is allowed to post these images because he is careful enough to not say that these girls should be sought out or somehow found. He is clever in his wording.

Ashford says that his intentions were purely innocent. "I didn't write anything more than that they're pretty. I didn't write that I want to take their knickers off. … There's not even a hint that I wanted to stalk them or anything like that."

That may end up being his strongest defense. Several First Amendment lawyers said that it was doubtful that Bauer or the Obama campaign would prevail in court.
Link

Scary thought isn't it?

And he is correct. He does have a right to post the images of these children online and comment on their "beauty". Obama reacted as a parent first and a candidate secondly it seems. Some might fault him for it, but others will commend him. After all, what he should consider most precious in the world are his children. It is understandable that he would want these images taken down.

Ashford has a history of upsetting people with his online behavior; on his site, he describes himself as "Lover of Little Girls."

In July 2005, his Web site devoted to missing children provoked outrage among parents of the children. Because the site is legal, they couldn't take action.

It would appear that free speech does have its draw backs at times...

[Baron Max]

I think that's a damned good example of the "Freedoms of Society" being abused by the "Freedoms of the Individual".

And if you think those freedoms are the same, you should think again, very seriously ....they are NOT the same. The members of a society can not be free, can not function, without controlling and limiting the freedom of the individual. And the individual can not survive without society. Modern society is struggling with this very dilemma on many fronts.

Baron Max

[Bells]

I guess the question that needs to be asked is whether Obama should have a right to legally demand those images of his daughters and any reference to them be removed from this man's website?

Or should the self confessed paedophile have the legal right to have the images there and the comments he has made about them and others?

Should Obama be judged badly for reacting as he has done?

[Baron Max]

I guess the question that needs to be asked is whether Obama should have a right to legally demand those images of his daughters and any reference to them be removed from this man's website?

In the USA, almost anyone can take anyone else to court ...for almost anything! The problem, of course, is one of interpretation of the laws ...and I know of no specific law which states that someone can't have pictures on a website. If there were such a law, the celebrities would rejoice, wouldn't they?

Or should the self confessed paedophile ...

Really, Bells, I just have to ask ....what the hell is a "self-confessed paedophile"?? I.e., one can't actually BE a paedophile unless he's been convicted of it, right? Isn't that something like me claiming to be a "self-confessed murderer" because I keep saying that I want all humans dead and gone from the Earth?

Should Obama be judged badly for reacting as he has done?

Well, what does this say about his ability to lead a great and powerful nation like the USA? I mean, what would he do if the Muslims put up such pictures of his daughters on some vile, terrorist-linked website making all kinds of vile claims about her? Would he send in the troops, and drop 468,231 nuclear bombs on something or someone? I can hope, of course, but my guess is y'all wouldn't like a president who'd react in such a way.

Don't we hope, dream, wish, that our leaders are above such "human" reactions and emotional outbursts?

Baron Max

[Michael]

Seriously, taking an image of a child and using it in sexually explicit manner is an invasion of that child's right to privacy - could endanger the child, and is as good enough a reason to get your arse kicked as I can think of. If I had a daughter I'd have to kick this mans arse.

[Baron Max]

Seriously, taking an image of a child and using it in sexually explicit manner is an invasion of that child's right to privacy - could endanger the child, and is as good enough a reason to get your arse kicked as I can think of. If I had a daughter I'd have to kick this mans arse.

Oh, I agree, Michael, but would you want that kind of man as the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth??? ...one who can't control his temper or his emotions?

Baron Max

[Michael]

Oh, I agree, Michael, but would you want that kind of man as the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth??? ...one who can't control his temper or his emotions?

Oooh you mean Bush Jr and his master Cheney

Yes Cheney's insatiable love of the dead, while nice in poetry ala Living Dead Girl, sure does suck here in the Real World ala Iraq.

Anyway, I'd still beat that sick f*ckers arse into the ground if it were my daughter's pictures on the web, no questions asked.

Michael

[Bells]

Oh, I agree, Michael, but would you want that kind of man as the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth??? ...one who can't control his temper or his emotions?

Baron Max

The same could be asked if you would want a leader who did not care if his daughters images were placed on such a website? It's a catch 22 isn't it. Should he be seen to be a bad presidential candidate for being human and would he be seen as one? Or would he be seen to be a bad presidential candidate if he was cold and callous and did not seem to care.

I just think it raises an interesting point. Where should the father end and the President begin and vice versa? Should he stop being a caring father if he becomes President?

In the USA, almost anyone can take anyone else to court ...for almost anything! The problem, of course, is one of interpretation of the laws ...and I know of no specific law which states that someone can't have pictures on a website. If there were such a law, the celebrities would rejoice, wouldn't they?

Had this man said that he wanted to touch or molest these girls or encouraged others to try to find them, then he would have committed a crime.

Really, Bells, I just have to ask ....what the hell is a "self-confessed paedophile"?? I.e., one can't actually BE a paedophile unless he's been convicted of it, right? Isn't that something like me claiming to be a "self-confessed murderer" because I keep saying that I want all humans dead and gone from the Earth?

Gee.. What is a self confessed paedophile? Could it be someone who says outright that he/she likes little children and sees them as a sexual object and is sexually attracted to them?

A conviction has nothing to do with it. It is a term used to describe adults who like kiddies in that 'special' way.

Well, what does this say about his ability to lead a great and powerful nation like the USA? I mean, what would he do if the Muslims put up such pictures of his daughters on some vile, terrorist-linked website making all kinds of vile claims about her? Would he send in the troops, and drop 468,231 nuclear bombs on something or someone? I can hope, of course, but my guess is y'all wouldn't like a president who'd react in such a way.

That's the thing isn't it.

He is not advocating violence towards this individual. He is just seeking legal action to have the images and the 'rating' of his daughters removed from the website. I don't think any parent could fault him for his reaction. I can tell you now if it were me I would have torn the bastard's legs off and damn the election. But that's just me.

As it stands now, civil liberties lawyers in the US are not happy that he is trying to have these images removed. So his acting like a good parent now makes him a bad Presidential candidate for many. I just think it is quite interesting. Must be hard, but he cares for his kids and he acted as a caring parent. You can't fault him for that. Remains to be seen what will happen.

[iceaura]

I can recall the sexually loaded attention focused on Clinton's kid during his first campaign, by guys like Rush Limbaugh and others - nothing he could really do. W's family has been treated with more courtesy, at least until they started doing things that got them evicted from whole countries as well as bars.

If I were the local DA, I'd just monitor the site until a terroristic threat appears.